Trump, Saudi Arabia warn Iran against Middle East conflict

[webfact]

Trump, Saudi Arabia warn Iran against Middle East conflict

By Marwa Rashad and Stephen Kalin

 

FILE PHOTO: A technical staff is seen at the Port of Fujairah, United Arab Emirates, May 13, 2019. REUTERS/Satish Kumar

 

RIYADH (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump issued a new threat to Tehran on Sunday, tweeting that a conflict would be the "official end" of Iran, as Saudi Arabia warned it stood ready to respond with "all strength" and said it was up to Iran to avoid war.

 

The heightened rhetoric follows last week's attacks on Saudi oil assets and the firing of a rocket on Sunday into Baghdad's heavily fortified "Green Zone" that exploded near the U.S. embassy.

 

"If Iran wants to fight, that will be the official end of Iran. Never threaten the United States again!"Trump said in a tweet without elaborating.

 

A U.S. State Department official said the rocket attack in Baghdad did not hit a U.S.-inhabited facility and produced no casualties nor any significant damage. No claims of responsibility had been made, but the United States was taking the incident "very seriously."

 

"We have made clear over the past two weeks and again underscore that attacks on U.S. personnel and facilities will not be tolerated and will be responded to in a decisive manner," the official said in an emailed statement. "We will hold Iran responsible if any such attacks are conducted by its proxy militia forces or elements of such forces, and will respond to Iran accordingly."

 

Riyadh, which emphasized that it does not want a war, has accused Tehran of ordering Tuesday's drone strikes on two oil pumping stations in the kingdom, claimed by Yemen's Iran-aligned Houthi group. Two days earlier, four vessels, including two Saudi oil tankers, were sabotaged off the coast of the United Arab Emirates.

 

In response, countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) began "enhanced security patrols" in the international waters of the Arabian Gulf area on Saturday, the U.S. Navy's Bahrain-based Fifth Fleet said on Sunday.

 

Iran has denied involvement in either incident, which come as Washington and the Islamic Republic spar over sanctions and the U.S. military presence in the region, raising concerns about a potential U.S.-Iran conflict.

 

"The kingdom of Saudi Arabia does not want a war in the region nor does it seek that," Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Adel al-Jubeir told a news conference on Sunday.

 

"It will do what it can to prevent this war and at the same time it reaffirms that in the event the other side chooses war, the kingdom will respond with all force and determination, and it will defend itself and its interests."

 

Saudi Arabia's King Salman on Sunday invited Gulf and Arab leaders to convene emergency summits in Mecca on May 30 to discuss implications of the attacks.

 

"The current critical circumstances entail a unified Arab and Gulf stance towards the besetting challenges and risks," the UAE foreign ministry said in a statement.

 

The U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet said in its statement about increased maritime patrols that GCC countries were "specifically increasing communication and coordination with each other in support of regional naval cooperation and maritime security operations in the Arabian Gulf," with navies and coast guards working with the U.S. Navy.

 

Saudi Arabia's Sunni Muslim ally the UAE has not blamed anyone for the tanker sabotage operation, pending an investigation. No-one has claimed responsibility, but two U.S. government sources said last week that U.S. officials believed Iran had encouraged the Houthi group or Iraq-based Shi'ite militias to carry it out.

 

The drone strike on oil pumping stations, which Riyadh said did not disrupt output or exports, was claimed by the Houthis, who have been battling a Saudi-led military coalition in a war in Yemen since 2015.

 

The Houthi-controlled SABA news agency said on Sunday, citing a military source from the group, that targeting Aramco's installations last week was the beginning of coming military operations against 300 vital military targets.

 

Targets include vital military headquarters and facilities in the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, as well as their bases in Yemen, the source told SABA.

The head of the Houthis' Supreme Revolutionary Committee, Mohammed Ali al-Houthi, derided Riyadh's call to convene Arab summits, saying in a Twitter post that they "only know how to support war and destruction".

 

A Norwegian insurers' report seen by Reuters said Iran's Revolutionary Guards were "highly likely" to have facilitated the attack on vessels near the UAE's Fujairah emirate, a main bunkering hub lying just outside the Strait of Hormuz.

 

SAUDI PRINCE CALLS POMPEO

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif has dismissed the possibility of war erupting, saying Tehran did not want conflict and no country had the "illusion it can confront Iran". This stance was echoed by the head of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards on Sunday.

 

"We are not pursuing war but we are also not afraid of war," Major General Hossein Salami was cited as saying by the semi-official news agency Tasnim.

 

Washington has tightened economic sanctions against Iran, trying to cut Tehran's oil exports to zero, and beefed up the U.S. military presence in the Gulf in response to what it said were Iranian threats to United States troops and interests.

 

Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman discussed regional developments, including efforts to strengthen security and stability, in a phone call with U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, the Saudi Media Ministry tweeted on Sunday.

 

"We want peace and stability in the region but we will not sit on our hands in light of the continuing Iranian attack," Jubeir said. "The ball is in Iran's court and it is up to Iran to determine what its fate will be."

 

He said the crew of an Iranian oil tanker that had been towed to Saudi Arabia early this month after a request for help due to engine trouble were still in the kingdom receiving the "necessary care". The crew are 24 Iranians and two Bangladeshis.

 

Saudi Arabia and Shi'ite Iran are arch-adversaries in the Middle East, backing opposite sides in several regional wars. In a sign of the heightened tension, Exxon Mobil evacuated foreign staff from an oilfield in neighbouring Iraq.

 

Bahrain on Saturday warned its citizens against travel to Iraq and Iran and asked those already there to return. The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration has issued an advisory to U.S. commercial airliners flying over the waters of the Gulf and the Gulf of Oman to exercise caution.

 

(Additional reporting by Lisa Barrington in Dubai, Nandita Bose in Wahsington, Ali Abdelaty in Cairo, Babak Dehghanpisheh in Geneva; Writing by Stephen Kalin, Ghaida Ghantous and David Lawder; Editing by Raissa Kasolowsky, Mark Potter, Chris Reese and Sandra Maler)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-05-20

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

[Bluespunk]

1 hour ago, webfact said:

 

"If Iran wants to fight, that will be the official end of Iran. Never threaten the United States again!"Trump said in a tweet without elaborating.

I’m sorry, but what did you expect would happen when you unilaterally withdrew from the nuclear deal and imposed sanctions, trump?

 

Did you seriously believe they would roll over and do your bidding like a whipped dog?

 

I have no support for Iran, it’s theocratic rule of law or the actions of it’s revolutionary guards, but those there are not going to back down to you.

 

They clearly are not afraid of you and hold you in contempt. 

 

The current escalating situation is a direct direct result of your actions and rather than tweeting you usual nonsense you need to let the grown ups get involved and negotiate a lasting settlement. 

 

[BestB]

5 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

I’m sorry, but what did you expect would happen when you unilaterally withdrew from the nuclear deal and imposed sanctions, trump?

 

Did you seriously believe they would roll over and do your bidding like a whipped dog?

 

I have no support for Iran, it’s theocratic rule of law or the actions of it’s revolutionary guards, but those there are not going to back down to you.

 

They clearly are not afraid of you and hold you in contempt. 

 

The current escalating situation is a direct direct result of your actions and rather than tweeting you usual nonsense you need to let the grown ups get involved and negotiate a lasting settlement. 

 

Iraq was also not afraid. Saddam was defiant and bear his chest every day and how did that work out ?

 

Yes , Trump pulled out but not over night and not without a prior notice .

 

Instead of coming to a negotiating table to salvage the deal , Iran thought by postering Trump would not dare. But guess what? He dared.

 

Now Iran is beating it’s chest once again. 

 

Let me remind you the mighty powerful Iranian army was and is in Syria and were useless until Russians stepped in.

 

Iran lost its Russian support also .

[Bluespunk]

2 minutes ago, BestB said:

Iraq was also not afraid. Saddam was defiant and bear his chest every day and how did that work out ?

 

Yes , Trump pulled out but not over night and not without a prior notice .

 

Instead of coming to a negotiating table to salvage the deal , Iran thought by postering Trump would not dare. But guess what? He dared.

 

Now Iran is beating it’s chest once again. 

 

Let me remind you the mighty powerful Iranian army was and is in Syria and were useless until Russians stepped in.

 

Iran lost its Russian support also .

What happened in Iraq and the disastrous regional consequences of the invasion of that country on false pretences is exactly why the Americans should not get involved in another invasion. 

 

Do you really believe the American public wants to go through that again?

[BestB]

1 minute ago, Bluespunk said:

What happened in Iraq and the disastrous regional consequences of the invasion of that country on false pretences is exactly why the Americans should not get involved in another invasion. 

 

Do you really believe the American public wants to go through that again?

We are not discussing the consequences or what US should or should not do.

 

Point was Iran’s threats and chest beating is nothing but baseless bravado. Paper tiger , sounds scary but nothing to back it up

[Tug]

That’s our Donald tear up a working agreement that was being followed replace it with nothing give the ok to give the Saudis nuclear tec (the ones that did the World Trade Center)yea Donald sounds great ya clown 

[Bluespunk]

13 minutes ago, BestB said:

We are not discussing the consequences or what US should or should not do.

 

Point was Iran’s threats and chest beating is nothing but baseless bravado. Paper tiger , sounds scary but nothing to back it up

The threats are coming from both sides and are the consequences of trump’s actions. 

 

As to baseless bravado, a man who avoided military service and let rain stop him visiting a cemetery dedicated to his country’s fallen is no role model for courage and heroism. 

[mercman24]

i pissed myself laughing,  (advice for commercial arlines)  so you are a passenger in a jet liner flying over the Gulf of Oman, pilot looks out the window, missile at 2 o, clock. dive dive,  yep, that will work, lol !!

[Scott]

Inflammatory post reported and removed.

 

[rabas]

20 minutes ago, Tug said:

That’s our Donald tear up a working agreement that was being followed replace it with nothing give the ok to give the Saudis nuclear tec (the ones that did the World Trade Center)yea Donald sounds great ya clown 

I agree with all except the term working. Working in what way? What is working to you?

 

1. working. politically expedient for Obama*, great new businesses for EU partners, huge money for Iran to support both their economy and extend regional military influence. Yes.

 

2. Working: To prevent Iran becoming another nuclear threat and thorn in the West's side. No. Note: Iran was already working on explosive mechanisms for nuclear weapons at least ten years ago. Their angelic claims of 'peacefulness' are just posturing (true of all sides, btw)

 

*Why is the spell checker not spelling Obama, but has no trouble with Osama??

[BestB]

15 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

The threats are coming from both sides and are the consequences of trump’s actions. 

 

As to baseless bravado, a man who avoided military service and let rain stop him visiting a cemetery dedicated to his country’s fallen is no role model for courage and heroism. 

I see. So it’s all trumps fault ? Nothing to do with Iranians or Obama doing a bad deal . Got ya????

[Tug]

3 minutes ago, rabas said:

I agree with all except the term working. Working in what way? What is working to you?

 

1. working. politically expedient for Obama*, great new businesses for EU partners, huge money for Iran to support both their economy and extend regional military influence. Yes.

 

2. Working: To prevent Iran becoming another nuclear threat and thorn in the West's side. No. Note: Iran was already working on explosive mechanisms for nuclear weapons at least ten years ago. Their angelic claims of 'peacefulness' are just posturing (true of all sides, btw)

 

*Why is the spell checker not spelling Obama, but has no trouble with Osama??

Ask all the other signatories they seem to think it was working this new Donald fiasco isent

[metisdead]

A troll post containing a flaming animated meme has been removed. 

[rabas]

25 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

33 minutes ago, BestB said:

We are not discussing the consequences or what US should or should not do.

 

Point was Iran’s threats and chest beating is nothing but baseless bravado. Paper tiger , sounds scary but nothing to back it up

The threats are coming from both sides and are the consequences of trump’s actions. 

 

As to baseless bravado, a man who avoided military service and let rain stop him visiting a cemetery dedicated to his country’s fallen is no role model for courage and heroism. 

Baseless bravado. The second time the US threatened to fire missiles into Syria because of the use of Chemical weapons, Mr Putin threatened "Not only will I shoot down your missiles we will also destroy the platforms they were fired from (aircraft, vessels)"

 

Trump: Here they come Mr. Putin and they are very smart. 100+ missiles fired, known targets removed, no evidence of any shot down, no aircraft, vessels fired on.

 

Putin bravado +5

Trump bravado  0

[geoffbezoz]

1 minute ago, rabas said:

Baseless bravado. The second time the US threatened to fire missiles into Syria because of the use of Chemical weapons, Mr Putin threatened "Not only will I shoot down your missiles we will also destroy the platforms they were fired from (aircraft, vessels)"

 

Trump: Here they come Mr. Putin and they are very smart. 100+ missiles fired, known targets removed, no evidence of any shot down, no aircraft, vessels fired on.

 

Putin bravado +5

Trump bravado  0

Known targets removed reliant upon US propaganda.  Collateral damage to civilians ratified by independent reporting.

[xylophone]

32 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

As to baseless bravado, a man who avoided military service and let rain stop him visiting a cemetery dedicated to his country’s fallen is no role model for courage and heroism. 

Not to mention denigrating an American war hero; ridiculing a reporter who had a disability and blaming bone spurs for his military exemption; accusing an American president of not being an American citizen, etc ...........blah, blah, poppycock from a coward and a brainless bully.

 

Americans should be ashamed of this idiot.

[geoffbezoz]

1 minute ago, xylophone said:

Not to mention denigrating an American war hero; ridiculing a reporter who had a disability and blaming bone spurs for his military exemption; accusing an American president of not being an American citizen, etc ...........blah, blah, poppycock from a coward and a brainless bully.

 

Americans should be ashamed of this idiot.

I think to be fair to most normal Americans, they are ashamed and embarrassed because of him. Still he will be aware soon but the bigger problem is how long it will take an incoming President to restore the goodwill of the world again ? Could take decades.

[rabas]

28 minutes ago, Tug said:

Ask all the other signatories they seem to think it was working this new Donald fiasco isent

It was never even intended to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons in the long run and allowed them to keep most of their industry. In that sense there have been no detected violations. At least to my recollection it was viewed as a delay to the inevitable, after which Iran would be in a stronger position to obtain weapons quickly. Even the non-allowed equipment was just put in storage.  But yes it was working according to the limited expectations of other signatories.

 

It was a good idea, who does not want peace, but the implementation did little to attain the primary goal. That is why the US congress never supported it. A majority of Congress including all Republicans and some Democrats opposed the deal.

[Bluespunk]

35 minutes ago, BestB said:

I see. So it’s all trumps fault ? Nothing to do with Iranians or Obama doing a bad deal . Got ya????

The current situation with Iran is all on trump.

 

The long term Middle East problems, that's on a lot of us.

[rabas]

27 minutes ago, geoffbezoz said:

Known targets removed reliant upon US propaganda.  Collateral damage to civilians ratified by independent reporting.

The targeted research centres engaged in chemical weapons development were fully removed, pictures widely available from all sides.

[Srikcir]

4 hours ago, rabas said:

A majority of Congress including all Republicans and some Democrats opposed the deal.

Senate Democrats delivered a major victory to President Obama when 42 Democrat Senators blocked a Republican resolution to reject the Iran nuclear deal which required 60 votes.

The House passed the first two resolutions:

• H. Res 411 claiming that Obama did not submit all the elements of the deal to Congress, as required by the Iran Nuclear Review Act
• H. Res 3460 to prevent Obama from lifting sanctions on Iran

The third resolution failed to pass, with a vote of 162-269:

• H. Res 3461 to approve the deal

But the resolutions were largely symbolic, as President Obama had enough support to ensure the deal would survive. McConnell also said that the Senate would not debate House legislation without “enough co-sponsors to override a presidential veto.” Although 25 House Democrats opposed the deal, House opponents still fell short of a veto-proof majority.

https://iranprimer.usip.org/blog/2015/sep/11/congress-votes-deal

 

Republicans against Obama denuclearizing Iran - how ironic today with Republicans failing their own POTUS to denuclearize North Korea who actually has functioning nuclear ICBM's.

[Morch]

7 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

I’m sorry, but what did you expect would happen when you unilaterally withdrew from the nuclear deal and imposed sanctions, trump?

 

Did you seriously believe they would roll over and do your bidding like a whipped dog?

 

I have no support for Iran, it’s theocratic rule of law or the actions of it’s revolutionary guards, but those there are not going to back down to you.

 

They clearly are not afraid of you and hold you in contempt. 

 

The current escalating situation is a direct direct result of your actions and rather than tweeting you usual nonsense you need to let the grown ups get involved and negotiate a lasting settlement. 

 

 

Wouldn't know that the Iranians won't back down. Posturing statements before doing just that would be in line with how things worked out in the past. Yes, including the so-called Iran Deal. Same goes for the "clearly not afraid" bit - if Iran was anywhere as confident as that, it would be more forthcoming with action. In reality, the prospects of an actual military conflict with the USA aren't in the Iranian regime's favor, especially so when it comes to maintaining power. Even the sanctions by themselves are taking a heavy toll.

 

Trump definitely contributed to the current situation coming about, mostly through withdrawing from the agreement and re-imposing sanctions. Making it totally about him, though, is giving Iran quite a free pass with regard to choices made. I think that even with the agreement in place, things would have come to that - perhaps at a slower pace, though.

 

As far as I'm aware, Trump is the side who wishes to negotiate - even if his take on such negotiations seems to be "sign here". The Iranian regime mostly rejects the notion of re-negotiation, and insists on retaining the agreement as is.

[Morch]

6 hours ago, geoffbezoz said:

Known targets removed reliant upon US propaganda.  Collateral damage to civilians ratified by independent reporting.

 

Independent reporting being RT affiliates and the like or official Syrian channels?

[Morch]

6 hours ago, geoffbezoz said:

I think to be fair to most normal Americans, they are ashamed and embarrassed because of him. Still he will be aware soon but the bigger problem is how long it will take an incoming President to restore the goodwill of the world again ? Could take decades.

 

Not that long, I think. Most countries and governments will be so relieved dealing with anyone reasonably stable, so will probably go along with everything. Might actually be a good time for some USA gains.

[Bluespunk]

50 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Wouldn't know that the Iranians won't back down. Posturing statements before doing just that would be in line with how things worked out in the past. Yes, including the so-called Iran Deal. Same goes for the "clearly not afraid" bit - if Iran was anywhere as confident as that, it would be more forthcoming with action. In reality, the prospects of an actual military conflict with the USA aren't in the Iranian regime's favor, especially so when it comes to maintaining power. Even the sanctions by themselves are taking a heavy toll.

 

Trump definitely contributed to the current situation coming about, mostly through withdrawing from the agreement and re-imposing sanctions. Making it totally about him, though, is giving Iran quite a free pass with regard to choices made. I think that even with the agreement in place, things would have come to that - perhaps at a slower pace, though.

 

As far as I'm aware, Trump is the side who wishes to negotiate - even if his take on such negotiations seems to be "sign here". The Iranian regime mostly rejects the notion of re-negotiation, and insists on retaining the agreement as is.

Partially agree with you, though

 

Iran probably takes the line on a negotiating a new deal they do as they had an agreement that the USA unilaterally withdrew from, can't say I blame them really.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, Bluespunk said:

Partially agree with you, though

 

Iran probably takes the line on a negotiating a new deal they do as they had an agreement that the USA unilaterally withdrew from, can't say I blame them really.

 

Yes, on this score the Iranians do have a point. I think it would have been better served had they taken a less confrontational approach though, regardless of whether they were in the right about renegotiation.

 

There's some romantic view, often posted on these topic about Iran good at playing the long game etc. Well a better long game might have been to avoid giving Trump something to use as pretext (even if not defined in the Iran Deal), get the economy back on track with Western firms fully back in, lower profile with regard to regional activities. Alas, Iran got it's own hardliners - and as such things go, there's a political symbiosis between them and their counterparts in the USA.

 

There is no real way Iran can win a confrontation, or benefit from one. And I don't think the situation they are in today is a result of careful planning on their part. More like they miscalculated, with some elements pushing for hard-line positions. Given their current predicament and past instances, and barring a flare up (accidental or contrived), it will end with a face-saving formula which will see them renegotiation under a different label.

[Scott]

Troll post removed.  

 

[Sir Swagman]

Could we see a headline ‘trump warns Martians not to threaten or attack...’? Seems impending action against Martians is about as neccesary as this distraction.

[Scott]

Troll post has been reported and removed.  

 

[Kwasaki]

On 5/20/2019 at 8:19 AM, webfact said:

Washington has tightened economic sanctions against Iran, trying to cut Tehran's oil exports to zero, and beefed up the U.S. military presence in the Gulf in response to what it said were Iranian threats to United States troops and interests.

Quite right how dare anyone touch world oil & gas it all belongs to US.